Replies

It appears the reporters did not rely on the earlier, formal releases. They knew everyone in the government was made to sign form releases. So it still could be Rove.

"So it still could be Rove."

Yesterday, Rove's attorney told a Washington Post reporter (see above) that Rove was NOT the person Cooper was referring to.

NYTimes implies that Rove was the source that gave Cooper the last minute release:
"Mr. Cooper's decision to drop his refusal to testify followed discussions on Wednesday morning among lawyers representing Mr. Cooper and Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, according to a person who has been officially briefed on the case. Mr. Fitzgerald was also involved in the discussions, the person said.

In his statement in court, Mr. Cooper did not name Mr. Rove as the source about whom he would now testify, but the person who was briefed on the case said that he was referring to Mr. Rove and that Mr. Cooper's decision came after behind-the-scenes maneuvering by his lawyers and others in the case.

Those discussions centered on whether a legal release signed by Mr. Rove last year was meant to apply specifically to Mr. Cooper, who by its terms would be released from any pledge of confidentiality he had made to Mr. Rove, the person said. Mr. Cooper said in court that he had agreed to testify only after he had received an explicit waiver from his source."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/politics/07leak.html?pagewanted=2

But the article that Steve_Seattle points out from a WaPo reporter it implies Rove last not the source who gave the last minute release:
"One of the government officials Cooper talked to during that period was Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, according to Cooper's notes and Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. Luskin has said Rove did not identify Plame to Cooper and did nothing wrong. In an interview yesterday, he said Rove is not the source who called Cooper and personally waived the confidentiality agreement."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002364091_leak07.html

So either I am reading this wrong, or someone is lying...the NYT or Luskin (Rove's attorney). Of course the NYT source is unnamed.

It appears the reporters did not rely on the earlier, formal releases. They knew everyone in the government was made to sign form releases. So it still could be Rove.

No, it could not still be Rove.

Sheesh

I'll say for the millionth time: In order to leak something, the leaker has to have the knowledge to leak.